Take That Circus tour

WeasteDevil said:
I certainly didn't say that they were an artistic force, I simply called you out on your "no artistic merit" comment, which is clearly total rubbish.
Click to expand...

No weaste you drew a parallel between saying that something has no artistic merit and saying that something is artistically wrong, and intimated that that (even though not accurate or a reflection of what I'd actually said) was somehow a reflection on my understanding of art, which according to you is even more shocking considering I write songs.

All that is rubbish from start to finish.

WeasteDevil said:
You keep saying this without anything to back it up. It's blarb. I'll give you that none of Barlow's or Take That's "works" would ever be considered as a "masterpiece" nor "genre defining" nor greatly influential, however they are in the main technically ept, and have culturally at least had quite a large impact on many people's lives. In that respect, they are artistically valid - If they were not, you wouldn't even be in this thread because there would be no thread in the first place.
Click to expand...

Surely your own words 'that none of Barlow's or Take That's "works" would ever be considered as a "masterpiece" nor "genre defining" nor greatly influential' to some degree backs up my saying that they hold minimal artistic merit. Unless you're defining artisic merit based on technical capability & popularity, which to me is incredibly flawed as it removes all elements of genuine emotion or feeling which I think more often than not is what makes art art.
 
Brad said:
I've just listened to the entire Take That Greatest Hits album, and I ENJOYED IT SO NER!!!

And I'm not even gay. Shakes your faith in humanity don't it
Click to expand...

And I was hoping you spent your brief moments away from the caf constructively.
 
Eyepopper said:
Surely your own words 'that none of Barlow's or Take That's "works" would ever be considered as a "masterpiece" nor "genre defining" nor greatly influential' to some degree backs up my saying that they hold minimal artistic merit.
Click to expand...

You didn't say "minimal merit", you said "no merit".

Eyepopper said:
Unless you're defining artisic merit based on technical capability & popularity, which to me is incredibly flawed as it removes all elements of genuine emotion or feeling which I think more often than not is what makes art art.
Click to expand...

I've never mentioned technical capability apart from to say that they are not inept, and thus any art that is not technically inept cannot be said to have "no merit". As for the popularity, art is what its viewer sees in it, I'm quite sure that Take That have stirred genuine emotion in many people, no matter how wet or irrelevant that may seem to you or me. As with any art, it's always down to interpretation, and lyrics for example that might not mean anything to you might mean a lot to somebody else. That's what any particular person sees in it. What would be interesting in terms of how the sound of Take That can produce a genuine emotion is to maybe look at their success abroad in non-English speaking countries. Maybe that is a more valid yardstick, because then it's not the actual words themselves that you are relating to the latest crush you have on the boy that sits at the back of the class.

Time is also something that redefines high and low quality art, but so is fad. Fad in that when I was in my early 20s, you had all of these 70s nights in the popular night clubs with people dressing up like Brad and doing the monster mash. High art? Were the Beatles high art? Probably, but I've never owned an album of theirs and would never buy one either. Just because something seems fresh and new at the time doesn't make it genre defining. There were probably quite a few bands around at the time that were better musicians and even artists than they were, but then what got the Beatles to where they got to was the same thing that got Take That to the pinnacle of their peak, theatres full of screaming teenage girls. Therefore, in 200 years, I would suspect that the Beatles will be bundled up with Take That in the same sorry pile of the "artistically limited", with the Hollies maybe on the pile above labled "artistically reasonable and non cannabis fuelled".
 
I haven't read this thread but i'm assuming some sort of argument / debate is being had.

"Take that are shit"

"No they're not"

Can someone confirm / deny this? (to save going through all the pages)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.